Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files (7 page)

If that is the case is there any evidence to support this? The answer is yes, but we first have to go back to the movement of the body from the murder scene and the subsequent removal of her clothes at the mortuary, a process that took place there involving police officers and doctors. We first have to look at the timings following the removal of the body to the mortuary.

Body removed from crime scene 2.55am

Body arrived at the mortuary 3.15am

Body stripped and clothing listed

Persons present: Dr. Brown, Dr. Sequeira, Mr. Davis mortuary keeper, Inspector Collard, Dc Halse

In accordance with protocol the clothing would have been carefully removed and each item listed separately starting off at the top of the body and working downwards and removing and listing each item as it was removed. If Eddowes had been wearing an apron then it would have been one of the first items removed and would have appeared at the beginning of the list. Having regard to the suggestion that a portion or piece had been cut or torn I would have expected it to have been described as “white apron with piece missing”. Below is the official list of her clothing as produced by Inspector Collard at the inquest:

“Black Straw Bonnet – trimmed with green and black velvet and black beads, black strings. The bonnet was loosely tied and had partially fallen from the back of her head, no blood on front, but the back was lying in a pool of blood, which had run from the neck.

“Black Cloth Jacket – imitation fur edging round collar, fur round sleeves, no blood on front outside, large quantity of blood inside and outside back, outside back very dirty with blood and dirt, two outside pockets, trimmed black silk braid and imitation fur.

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

“White Calico Chemise – very much bloodstained all over apparently torn thus in middle of front.

“Man’s White Vest – button to match down front, two outside pockets, torn at back, very much bloodstained at back, blood and other stains on front.

“No drawers or stays.

“Pair of men’s lace-up boots.

“One Piece of Red Gauze Silk – various cuts thereon found on neck.”

Note there is no mention of an apron. Listed below is the list of her additional property and her personal effects:

“One Large White Handkerchief – bloodstained.

“Two Unbleached Calico Pockets – tape strings, cut through, also top left hand corners, cut off one.

“One Blue Striped Bed Ticking pocket – waistband and strings cut through, all three pockets blood stained.

“One White Cotton Pocket Handkerchief – red and white.

“One Pair Ribbed Stockings – feet mended with white.

“12 Pieces of White Rag – some slightly bloodstained.

“One Piece of White Coarse Linen.

“One Piece of White and Blue Shirting (Three Cornered).

“Two Small Blue Bed Ticking Bags.

“Two Short Clay Pipes (Black).

“Two Tin Boxes Containing Tea and Sugar.

“One Piece of Flannel and Six Pieces of Soap.

“One Small Toothcomb.

“One White Handled Table Knife and Spoon.

“One Red leather Cigarette Case and Tin Matchbox (Empty).

“One Ball of Hemp.

“One Piece of Red Flannel Containing Pins and Needles.

“One Piece of Old White Apron.”

Note the item listed at the end, “one piece of old white apron”, clearly this must be an indication that she was not wearing an apron but as I suggest, originally been in possession of two apron pieces. It should also be noted that this piece of apron found with the body was not described as being cut or torn of had any traces of blood as you might expect if she had have been wearing it around her waist at the time of her death.

It can be seen that they removed from the body all of the clothing as they came to it as it was on the body. From the descriptions of the clothing it would appear that the killer stabbed Eddowes at least four times through her outer clothing, before lifting the lower clothing up above her abdomen.

This can be seen by the descriptions of the downward cuts as described on some of the items of clothing, which ran from the waistline down towards the lower abdomen, and across the midline of the abdomen. This also goes to show that the killer had no design on the organs, otherwise why would he risk damaging organs by thrusting a long-bladed knife wildly and blindly into the stomach and drawing it down and across into the abdomen.

As with the apron piece found in Goulston Street, there are conflicting accounts and descriptions given by the police officers and doctors, both in their official statements, and as reported by the press in the various newspapers with regards to the apron piece from the mortuary.

The official statement of Dr. Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron
. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.”
This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.

However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached, and would have been described as an old white apron with piece missing, not as was described as old white apron piece, and would have been of significant size for the doctors and police to document it as just that. But because the piece found in Goulston Street matched the piece from the mortuary what was accounted with the two pieces was in effect one half of an apron.

However, as previously stated there were discrepancies and conflicting reports both from official statements of officers and doctors alike.

Dr. Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:

“Coroner:
Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street?

“Dr. Brown:
Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body
.”

Note he refers to strings suggesting that the apron was still fixed to the body. This press report is incorrect and misleading. As has been previously stated the body arrived at the mortuary at 3.15am and was then stripped. The Goulston Street apron piece was at that time in the hands of Dr. Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving it later on, took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till after 5.20am so Dr. Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was affixed to the body.

Again with the police officers there are inconsistencies with the reports, Inspector Collard’s official statement:
“I produce a portion of the apron piece the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and found outside her dress.”

Note he says “apparently wearing” why was he not specific in his statement after all he was at the mortuary when the body was stripped, he produced the lists of her clothing and personal effects surely he must have know whether she was or wasn’t wearing one?

Inspector Collard as quoted in The Telegraph:
“It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.”

Inspector Collard as quoted in the Times:
“The body was taken to the mortuary. A portion of the apron was found on her, and the other portion picked up in Goulston Street, would also be produced.”

His quotes from the above newspapers do not help in clarifying the matter.

Dc Halse who accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary in his official statement states:
“I accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary I saw the deceased stripped and saw that a portion of apron was missing.”

In this statement Halse does not help either way in proving or disproving whether she was or wasn’t wearing an apron.

Dc Halse quoted in the Times Newspaper: “I
then saw the deceased undressed and noticed that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.”

Dc Halse quoted in The Telegraph:
“I saw the deceased and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing.”

The question must be as to what made him take specific note of the missing piece and when? The Goulston Street piece was not found until 2.55am and then the officer conveyed it to a police station arriving at about 3.15am that would have been the same time that the body of Eddowes arrived at the mortuary and was stripped. After all I would have thought the torn clothing caused by the knife and the wounds of Eddowes would have been more noticeable and warranted noting down. Or was it a case of him becoming aware of the significance of the apron piece much later?

The arguments and heated debates amongst researchers will continue to go on and on, many choosing to accept the press reports as being correct simply because some of the contents of those reports go towards the theory that she was wearing an apron at the time of her murder and the killer did cut or tear a piece from it for the reasons previously suggested, a view that I do not share.

If we accept that the piece of apron was correctly identified, as being connected to Eddowes’ and the killer did not cut it or tear it, what other explanation could there be? I will put forward two plausible ones, which, many experts have foolishly chosen to disregard. However, as there is very little direct evidence in any event to prove the other theories, it would be unwise to dismiss anything which may add additional weight to existing evidence and, likewise, new explanations which could suggest that earlier theories have been wrong all these years.

My first explanation revolves around matters of personal feminine hygiene, which would account for the blood and faecal matter on the apron piece and the description of how it was described when found. In Victorian times women of the lower class, when menstruating, did not use sanitary towels, as we know them today. If they bothered to use anything at all, it was a cotton rag.

In addition the use of public toilets was unheard of among this class owing to the fact that a penny was required (hence the saying “to spend a penny”) and most could not afford this. When outdoors they would relieve themselves wherever they could: waste ground, alleyways and stairwells. Could it have been that the piece of apron was cut or torn by Eddowes herself from her original apron or from half an apron for this purpose and then discarded when totally soiled or when she used the stairwell in Goulston Street as a toilet while passing through at some time before her murder or even earlier that day? After all, there was a six-hour gap from when she left home until her arrest for being drunk at approximately 8.30pm, and at least 45 minutes after her release from police custody before her murder. She was in the area earlier that day before being arrested for being drunk, and could have been in the Goulston Street area prior to her death.

She could have easily made her way towards Flower and Dean Street where her lodgings were, after being released from the police station that journey would have taken her no more that 10-12 minutes. Perhaps she did, and then perhaps she didn’t relish the thought of a confrontation with her boyfriend. After all, she had on leaving the police station told the police that she would likely as not get a hiding when she did return back, and with that in mind then decided to head back in the direction of the city to try to earn some money prostituting herself. Either way her journey could have taken her along Goulston Street and past the archway.

I note on page 157 of “The Complete Jack the Ripper A-Z” compiled by several eminent Ripper researchers, there is an interesting sentence regarding the movements of Eddowes prior to her death and I quote, “A
nd that shortly before she died she was probably seen talking to a strange man at a dark corner in a direction leading away from the lodging house where she was staying”
.

As it stands that does tend to confirm that in fact following her release from Bishopsgate Police Station she did in fact make her way back towards Flower and Dean Street and her lodgings before making her way across to Mitre Square, a journey which could have taken her along Goulston Street. So it is quite feasible to suggest that it could have in fact been deposited by herself.

The apron piece was in the stairwell, so if it had been raining it would not have become wet with the rain. Maybe the wetness was caused by Eddowes’ urine. It is a known fact that when drunken people are arrested and detained in police cells they sometime become incontinent and wet themselves. So that could explain the wetness of the piece found in Goulston Street. Sadly the police did not have the benefit of forensic or DNA tests. Had they been able to conduct those tests we would be able to come to a definitive answer.

The second explanation I will seek to advance is that if Eddowes was in the vicinity of Goulston Street prior to her death then it is quite possible that she could have met a client and gone under the archway to indulge in some sexual act and at the conclusion simply used one of the pieces of old white apron to wipe herself down and then simply discarded it.